• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Management, Labor Agree: Changes to No-Match and E-Verify Programs Not Going to Work | Main | Nelson Mullins Adds Former Rep. Ron Klink to Government Relations Practice »

April 23, 2009



So if the public can see how the Supreme Court operates during oral argument it will lose respect for the court???

Dave G

The court already IS transparent, by its very nature, and has been for the last 200 some odd years. It publishes opinions and holds argument in open court. That's more than many nations can say. Where does this notion come from that unless something is available to anyone anywhere in the world at any time, its not transparent? I believe the justices are right in their hesitation--what empirical data is there that having U.S. SUPREME COURT arguments on youtube would enhance respect and appreciation for the law, rather than cheapen one of the few remaining hallowed institutions in our nation?

la savante

Rumor has it that Souter, who’s been an outspoken opponent of cameras in the Supreme Court, is retiring at the end of this term. He probably expects that there will be cameras there next term.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad